Repak The Irish Waste Management Conference Samus Clancy Contents - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Repak The Irish Waste Management Conference Samus Clancy Contents Repak - Today / Stakeholders / Legal / CSR / Operators Policy Context Circular Economy Meaning Circular Economy European Context/Integrated Approach EPR PPWD Questions
Séamus Clancy
The Irish Waste Management Conference
Repak - Today / Stakeholders / Legal / CSR / Operators Policy Context Circular Economy Meaning Circular Economy European Context/Integrated Approach EPR – PPWD Questions Summary
Mission
To deliver, on behalf of our members, the best environmentally sustainable packaging recovery compliance scheme for Ireland
in accordance with the approval issued by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on 3rd October 2013.
Vision
To be an organisation that is highly valued by all stakeholders as a compliance scheme achieving targets and recognised as a leading, innovative environmental influencer and educator and an excellent company to work in.
Values
Repak has professionalism, trust and integrity as its core values demonstrated through openness, transparency, excellence and commitment to all our stakeholders.
Repak scheme approved by DECLG to December 2018 New 2014 to 2018 Strategic Plan approved & submitted to DECLG on 7th October 2014 Corporate Governance requirement of Repak Approval all in place by 1st October 2014 – New Board Complete Ireland ranked 2nd for packaging recycling in Europe Membership fees and Operator subsidy visibility to 2018
6
Members 2120 DECLG Recovery Operators 113 Employees 26
Recovery Operators
113
Tonnes 798K (821K)
€24.3m Fees €20.6m Direct Cost
Members
2120
Overhead €4.3m
€700k
Household Tonnes Account For Greatest Cost
Direct Recycling Cost Tonnes Recycled
Househ
79% €16.3m Back Door 21% €4.6m Househ
43% 306160 Back Door 57% 405840
775 806 1208 1700 1923 2135 2165 2187 2285 2375 2343 2301 2178 2109 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Membership Numbers 2000-2013
Repak Member of the Year Award
Flow wrap project Printed flow wrap Drip pad project
238 tonnes of material prevented in 2013
(Reuse projects contributed 819 tonnes of 2013 total)
1577 1340 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Tonnes 2012 2013
Carton Brothers Packaging Reduction in 2013
15% reduction
Recovery Operator of the Year Kerbside Collection Service of the Year
Paper 51% Glass 21% Plastic 13% Metal 4% Wood 11% Paper 49% Glass 21% Plastic 14% Metal 4% Wood 12%
Recycled 2014 Total Tonnage 586,267 Recycled 2013 Total Tonnage 550,679
SRF, 55420, 8% RDF, 105,955, 15% [CATEG ORY NAME], [VALUE], [PERCE NTAGE] SRF, 60494, 7% RDF, 179,316, 22% [CATEG ORY NAME], [VALUE] , [PERCE NTAGE]
R & R 2013 Tonnage 712,057 R & R 2014 Tonnage 826,077
50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Residual Waste
RDF/SRF Exports
Baling / wrapping / removal
Trommel / sorting /
20 03 01 19 12 12 19 12 10 Improved CV (sorting / shredding / drying / …)
Predicting Economic Growth Balancing Fee Income & Expenditure to Recycling Targets Membership – No Growth Regulation Enforcement Not Strong PRI Review & PPWD Challenges
19
Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (ERP) report to DG Environment by BIO Intelligence, published 1 July 2014 EU Commission Proposal amending WFD, PPWD and LD (Annex VII), published 2 July 2014 PRI Review for Packaging, published 4 July 2014
Lack of transparency between the fees paid by producers and the costs they are supposed to cover What types of costs are covered by EPR and in which proportions? Transparency is required
costs of EPR schemes EU Commission Proposal amending WFD, PPWD and LD published 2 July 2014 Findings
Minimum requirements for extended producer responsibility Introduction of minimum
The setting of minimum
EPR aiming at internalising the end-of life Sound financial management
the entire costs per type of products; use of the funds collected and; – 7.4.2. appropriate collection and treatment of waste, control over the legality of waste shipments and quality of data and reporting.
Findings
From 2009 to 2011 Repak spent more than its income from producer fees; deficit was covered by the contingency fund Repak should examine how to reduce direct recycling costs in order to balance income with expenditure. In setting subsidy levels, the effect of the landfill levy should be considered. Repak should provide more transparency on the procedures for the calculation of subsidies paid to waste operators. Findings
Current ¡& ¡Future ¡Targets ¡% ¡
Current ¡ ¡ EU ¡Targets ¡ 2012 ¡Na5onal ¡ Waste ¡Report ¡ Repak ¡ DECLG ¡Na5onal ¡Targets ¡ 2014 ¡(Approval ¡Oct ¡‘13) ¡ EU ¡Proposed ¡Targets ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡2020 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡2025 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡2030 ¡ Recovery ¡ 60 ¡ 87 ¡ 75 ¡(by ¡2014) ¡ Recycling ¡ 55 ¡ 74 ¡ 70 ¡(by ¡2016) ¡ 60 ¡ ¡ 70 ¡ 80 ¡ Materials ¡ Current ¡ ¡ EU ¡Targets ¡ 2012 ¡Na5onal ¡ Waste ¡Report ¡ Repak ¡ ¡ DECLG ¡Na5onal ¡Targets ¡ (Approval ¡Oct ¡‘13) ¡ EU ¡Proposed ¡Targets ¡ ¡ ¡2020 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡2025 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡2030 ¡ ¡Glass ¡ 60 ¡ 86 ¡ 75 ¡(2014) ¡ 70 ¡ 80 ¡ 90 ¡ Paper ¡& ¡ Cardboard ¡ 60 ¡ 83 ¡ 80 ¡(2014) ¡ 85 ¡ 90 ¡ 90 ¡ Metal ¡ 50 ¡ 76 ¡ 65 ¡(2016) ¡ 70 ¡ 80 ¡ 90 ¡ Plas5c ¡ 22.5 ¡ 40 ¡ 50 ¡(2016) ¡ 45 ¡ 60 ¡ See ¡note ¡ Wood ¡ 15 ¡ 82 ¡ 90 ¡(2016) ¡ 50 ¡ 65 ¡ 80 ¡
Material ¡Specific ¡Recycling ¡Targets ¡% ¡
Population Growth Infrastructure Deficit Population Growth Infrastructure Deficit Full Circle- Co2 Emissions
By 2050, the planet will need to produce 70% more food, with less land, water and energy while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Member States shall take measures to establish integrated and adequate network of installations Network shall be designed to enable Community to become self-sufficient … and to enable Member States to move towards that aim individually
Prevention Reuse
Recycling
Recovery
Disposal
Protecting the Planet Maximising Infrastructure Feeding the Planet Shared Responsibility – Cost Burden
31
EPR:
Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Macedonia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey
Recovery note based EPR: UK & Poland Industry-run fund: Iceland Taxes, no EPR: Croatia, Denmark, Hungary
Packaging in Europe
Source: Based on data from EXPRA (2014) Figure 1-1: Approaches for addressing the packaging waste stream in Europe
Competition Single Schemes Figure 1-2: Single schemes vs competitive markets for European compliance schemes Source: Based on information from Flanderka (2013)
Article 6: Targets
Source: Eurostat data, 2012 and Repak licence conditions
80.3% 74.0% 41.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Packaging Waste Recycling in Europe
2012 Minimum ¡target ¡2001 ¡-‑ ¡25 ¡% ¡
Minimum ¡target ¡2020 ¡-‑ ¡60 ¡% ¡ IRL ¡Minimum ¡target ¡2016 ¡-‑ ¡70 ¡% ¡
EPR – PPWD Questions
35
36
Prevention Targets ? Prepare for Re-use Targets ? Re-Use Targets ? Full Cost Recovery & by who ? True Cost of End of Life Management ? Why end Recovery Targets ?
37
Ireland has performed strongly – but has infrastructure deficit Circular Economy needs ALL stakeholders to contribute (Industry, Consumers, Policy Makers) Realistic Targets for each Member State /European Objective Economic balance on
Shared Responsibility Build on achievements to date
Thank you